“In a democracy a one-vote majority is a winning decision”

This letter to The Star is from Cyril Olsen, Busk Meadow, Sheffield, S5

Friday, 15th March 2019, 1:00 pm
Updated Tuesday, 19th March 2019, 6:26 am

It is a fitting tribute to the circulation compass of The Star and the interest in the Your Say letters pages that we now have a regular contributor from Germany in Linda Mary Luke, late of Sheffield, and a newcomer from “over the pond”, Pete Westover of Pennsylvania USA with his “Brexit vote two is needed” lette, March 7.

I applaud his sentiment of not voting in the 2016 EU Referendum because he is now domiciled in the USA (not Europe) and wishes to leave the matter to those who have to live with the choice.

While we are in agreement that in a democracy a one-vote majority is a winning decision, I must question some of the content of Pete’s letter.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

He makes a profound statement that there is a vast difference between the romantic perspective of making England great again and for England going alone – yet Brexit was decided by a collective United Kingdom c 1.4 million majority vote, admittedly Scotland, Northern Ireland and London voting to remain.

Nobody actually knows what is going to happen when we finally Brexit, differing predictions coming from both Remain and Leave sides.

The country as a whole should give Brexit the opportunity to show what can be achieved when we finally rid ourselves of the EU shackles.

Many of the Remain doom and gloom forecasts have been proved wrong, particularly on the negative economy and higher unemployment figure, as a result of our leaving.

Contrary to Pete’s perceived view of Brexit being a romantic perspective to make our country great again, the economic and financial facts combined with the potential effect of regaining our national sovereignty, fishing grounds, control of immigration, saving of £39 billion, new world trade markets etc portray a very positive practical future for everyone regardless of how they voted.

While Pete believes that a second vote will result in a Remain decision I disagree.

I suggest that voters of all persuasions are thoroughly fed up of the mess that the leaving process has become and the intransigence of the EU that they would increase the 1.4 million Brexit majority in a further referendum.

As for his giving support to a third referendum if Remain should prevail, to allow the Leave side to make their case – how many referenda do you want Pete?

I respectfully submit that ad infinitum referenda on Brexit will truly make a mockery of democracy as we know it in this country and such a suggestion contradicts your agreement that one is a majority in any vote – let alone a probable 1.4 million plus at the second referendum.